Post your comment

Reader comments

This issue has highlighted the anachronism of having over 27 bishops and other religious figures in the House of Lords, making a mockery of the concept of democracy in the UK. While it’s useful to have a religious perspective sometimes in debates, this looks like overkill.

The Waddington amendment is essentially about giving the right to religious groups to criticise, condemn and endeavour to persuade gay people to change their ways. Several gay groups have already pointed out that it might well lead to an increase in homophobic attacks, simply because it will permit the religious to use such terms as ‘abomination’,’sodomy’ and other terms associated with religious nonsense. The result of this would be the giving of comfort of those who wish to attack gay people, the justification being that religion says that what they are doing is wrong. It is an evil amendment voted for by every conservative MP present in the Commons at the time of the debate on the Equality Bill. It is essentially homophobic in intent.

I’m very glad to see the British Humanist Association amongst the progressive faith and secular voices rejecting the religious exemptions to the Equality Bill. I am a member of the BHA and I recommend them to anyone who takes an interest in creating a more secular society.

stop the aid writes:

This issue has highlighted the anachronism of having over 27 bishops and other religious figures in the House of Lords, making a mockery of the concept of democracy in the UK.

Yes stop the aid, I agree that the anachronism of 27 bishops/religious figures in the House of Lords is truly an affront to any idea of democracy.

This was the comment in ‘Pink News’ on the effect of the Waddington amendment:

While Lord Waddington claimed his amendment was about “free speech,” in effect it gives people leeway to claim they were just following their religious beliefs if accused of inciting others to hate gay, lesbian or bisexual people.

Fundamentalist Christians claim it will allow them to continue to criticise homosexual sex and urge people to refrain from it.

“It is vital that progressive faith and secular voices are heard loud and clear supporting the Equality Bill and equal rights for LGBT people.” Really? Let’s hope that she doesn’t include Williams in that particular faith group.

For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.

That’s the amendment in question, isn’t it?

One of the things that bothers me the most about this amendment, the part that seems to me to be the most insidiously inhumane, is the part which refers the urging of people to modify such behaviour. This refers to conversion therapy (from whence we get the woeful “ex-gays”). This amendment should immediately be struck down for this line alone. I am pretty sure this violates international human rights laws. Conversion therapy has been denounced by all mainstream Western mental health groups, as it is dangerous and very harmful.

If the government was considering promoting therapies to make obese people anorexic or bulemic, it would be scrapped immediately. Such therapies are rightly banned and demonised. Yet conversion therapy, which essentially consists of brain-washing and bullying, is apparently A-OK. This shouldn’t even be a discussion anymore: the promotion of harm to individuals should be outlawed entirely by now.